What is God's Purpose?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Did God write Matthew? Or was it a guy named Matthew, trying to remember back awhile? No, wait, you'll call that avoidance.

How about this,Consider chapter 12, verse 34 of Matthew. "Brood of Vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundence of the heart the mouth speaks." This was Jesus speaking. While we are being literal and not considering context or translation or anything. Jesus is talking to snakes. He says they are evil, suggests that they can talk, and that in talking they can speak good things. That it is whatever you have the most of in your heart, cholesterol, oxygenated blood, non oxygenated blood, that is what your mouth talks about. Right?

 

[SnakeLord]

Did God write Matthew? Or was it a guy named Matthew, trying to remember back awhile? No, wait, you'll call that avoidance.

If we are willing to do this - it must be done with every single part of the bible. That will cause more problems than the theist would like. If it was just some fallible guy called Matthew, you have no case for taking any of it seriously. If he cannot accurately recall the words of this supposed god, (jesus), then you might aswell abandon them all. Everything he apparently said can be dismissed in equal fashion.

How about this,Consider chapter 12, verse 34 of Matthew. "Brood of Vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundence of the heart the mouth speaks." This was Jesus speaking.

No it wasn't, it was the bad memory of Matthew. See the problem now? You can continue to do this until you're left with a big fat nothing - case closed at that point.

While we are being literal and not considering context or translation or anything. Jesus is talking to snakes. He says they are evil, suggests that they can talk, and that in talking they can speak good things.

Incorrect, (although apparently snakes are evil and can talk - hence the distinction). However, I don't see how this applies to the earlier passage. Please, do tell me. Where is the relation with him insulting people and the straightforward, fact of the matter statement that you can blaspheme him and the father and be forgiven, but not the holy spirit. Are you saying that he was lying, that you can't blaspheme the father or son and be forgiven but that you can blaspheme the holy spirit? Please explain yourself.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Did God write Matthew? Or was it a guy named Matthew, trying to remember back awhile?

How about this,Consider chapter 12, verse 34 of Matthew. "Brood of Vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundence of the heart the mouth speaks." This was Jesus speaking. While we are being literal and not considering context or translation or anything. Jesus is talking to snakes. He says they are evil, suggests that they can talk, and that in talking they can speak good things. That it is whatever you have the most of in your heart, cholesterol, oxygenated blood, non oxygenated blood, that is what your mouth talks about. Right?

*************
M*W: It's a common belief among biblical scholars that the Book of Matthew was not written by someone named Matthew. That said, it is also unlikely that anyone named Paul wrote the Epistles... or even existed. I don't have my reference books with me, since I am at a refugee camp right now due to Hurricane Ike. Otherwise, I could provide you with citations.

"Matthew" is an Anglicized version of the words "Ra ma theo," which means literally "Ra" (the sun) "Theo" (is god). Also, Matthew was not the first gospel, Mark was written first. It's also likely that Mark stood for "Mars," "Luke" stood for "lucient" (clearly seen), and "John" may have stood for the Constellation of Aquarius which has represented "John the Baptist," and strangely enough, "Mary Magdalene," as they hold a jar that is representative of both sky figures.

I've done a lot of reading on the subject of astro-theology (the study of god in the zodiac). Observing the zodiac (astrology) was the study of the stars. It was the first religion created by ancient humans as a form of entertainment. I like to think of it as the first video game.

If you read Revelation, "John" who is credited with its authorship, you will find all the symbolism of the pregnant woman and the dragon, and the other symbols in the stars, planets and constellations.

In other words, the bible is an ancient astrology calendar. I understand this is too complicated to understand, but if you research it like I have, it would become quite clear.

Please understand that I am not saying that I believe this to be the only one true god or religion. I am not. What I am saying is that astro-theology was the first religion, albeit man-made, as were all other religions that were derived from it.

 

[gurglingmonkey]

I don't think so. We know our values, and we can scientifically prove them. Value of our lives, love, morals are all necessary things for us to be happy and live as a society. You can understand those things philosophically, scientifically and religiously as well.

I agree that science can tell us what we do, in fact, value. I just don't think science can tell us what is valuable, or in other words, what we should value. I'm not sure that telling someone that they should value x is even coherent. I mean, when I say that we should value our lives and someone asks why? my answer is invariably based on another value, one that they might not share.

Me: You should really value your life, Ralph.
Ralph: Why is that?
Me: Because you can have a lot of fun in your life.
Ralph: Well, I don't care about having fun.
Me: Uh... okay. Well, all the people who love you would be sad if you died.
Ralph: Why should I care about their happiness?
Me: Because people being happy is good.
Ralph: Why should I try to achieve what is good?
Me: BECAUSE IT'S GOOD RALPH! It's good. Good!

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Snakelord-I must say you have an amazing ability at commenting on what I have said without an actual response. I will respond to the 2 responses you made.

1. All books were written by men. Taking your supposition that the Bible, since it was written by men, should be ignored, then we should do the same with the writings of Charles Darwin? Or perhaps the writings of science are above reproach, and we should toss out silliness like Voltaire, Kant, or even the recorded opinions of Socrates? It is a book. It has all the power that the individual assigns it.

2. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit. The work of the Holy Spirit is to give testimony(internal) to Jesus as Savior. Now. If you stop denying the Holy Spirit while you have breath, and have faith in Jesus Christ, then the blasphemy is undone. Not that I think you will accept this as an answer.

 

[SnakeLord]

1. All books were written by men. Taking your supposition that the Bible, since it was written by men, should be ignored

If you are reading a book that is supposed to be factual but find out that the information within is not factual but indeed fictional then yes, I would advise not taking it seriously. If your entire religion rests on; "well, you know he was just a man and couldn't remember certain details", then you establish no reason with which to take any of it as factual. And, if you are willing, I would be more than happy to go through the entire book and see what you, the theist, dismisses as fiction. You've already done it with Genesis, so that's one book out the way. Shall we continue?

If you are constantly dismissing the text of your own bible, how could you expect me or anyone else to take your religion seriously?

Now. If you stop denying the Holy Spirit while you have breath, and have faith in Jesus Christ, then the blasphemy is undone

Not according to jesus. I am now just wondering to myself whether you are a higher authority on the matter than jesus - woops, sorry, the mistaken matthew. If you blaspheme the holy spirit, aka holy wind, then you are not forgiven - now or ever, so sayeth matthew quoting jesus.. apparently incorrectly.

However, you put a little whine at the end saying you think I wont accept that as an answer. I hereby give you the opportunity to tell me why I should, why you should be regarded as the authority on the matter. Please, take your time.

 

[Billy T]

An answer to the thread's question, some free advice, and a little "God history":

Our God was shunned by the other gods, like the Quakers do. – No other God would talk to him. (It would take too long to tell why she was shunned, so I will skip that.) Thus, God made man in a universe that was a young God’s mistake and had been abandoned. God’s purpose (in making man) was to have some intellectually interesting people to talk with. God created a place called heaven to hold these discussions, but has not let anyone in yet as God wants to get the best from all generations of humanity. Dead person’s, whose soul might qualify are now in “limbo” – a cold storage place. Others, the vast majority, God just burns up immediately.

God is still working on the selection criteria. Here are the selection rules he* has already established:

(1) No fools who believe whatever they are told by parents or others in authority, but only people capable of independent thought would make interesting conversationalist. (God does not want his own thoughts just repeated back to him.)

(2) Independent thinkers (those who passed rule1) must not just make up any old weird thoughts, but have some logical basis for them.
I.e. hold ideas based on evidence that were at least once confirmed by testing.

(3) (Still under development)

So here is my "free advice":

(1) Whatever you do, have a logical, evidential, basis for it. For god’s sake, if you want to avoid the fire and to be selected for heaven, Do Not Pray to unseen being (or beings) lacking any evidential support.

(2) Do Not say (or even silently believe): “God does not exist.” as that too lacks evidence. Best to be an agnostic about God, if you want to go to heaven;
but Do Not be sure of that, as rule 3 is incomplete still.

-------------------
*God is multi-sexed, but that is too hard to explain and definitely "off thread."
Would others please try to get on thread and answer the question.

 

[Reiku]

Gods purpose, is to give everything else purpose.

 

[Billy T]

Gods purpose, is to give everything else purpose.

You have not really answered the question -told why God made anything? If he had not made anything, then there would be nothing requiring purpose. Why did God make something needing purpose? If God felt the need to make something, why not some clever purpose-less machines? They could look and act just like you (and me).

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

If you are reading a book that is supposed to be factual but find out that the information within is not factual but indeed fictional then yes, I would advise not taking it seriously.

Let's stop here a moment. Do you have any books that contain only facts? If my phone book has my phone number listed incorrectly, should I suppose, then that all the numbers are listed incorrectly? How about an Encyclopedia from the 1950's or so? The facts now are not what they were then in many cases, so should we assume that all encyclopedias from the 1950's are not to be taken seriously? If the book from the 1950's has one fact that agrees with one fact from today, does it make them both true? or are they false? You seem to want to deal with the books of the Bible in this manner.

If your entire religion rests on; "well, you know he was just a man and couldn't remember certain details", then you establish no reason with which to take any of it as factual.

no the religion rests on faith in God. Not in faith in the bible. Try not to get confused.

And, if you are willing, I would be more than happy to go through the entire book and see what you, the theist, dismisses as fiction.

By all means, please go verse by verse, so that we can consider it contextually as well, would you? Start with Genesis 1:1.

You've already done it with Genesis, so that's one book out the way.

Actually I have suggested that Genesis is a series of morality based stories. Don't misunderstand this as dismissal of the entire book. I don't dismiss the moral of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, either. Do you?

Shall we continue? By all means, but as I said previously, let's be thorough and go verse by verse. If you would like to start somewhere besides Genesis, perhaps we could start in Matthew and start by going through the New testament.

If you are constantly dismissing the text of your own bible, how could you expect me or anyone else to take your religion seriously?

I don't expect anyone to take anything seriously. I interpret things differently from some people, and I thought that you were an Atheist on a quest for actual knowledge. Was I mistaken?

Not according to jesus. I am now just wondering to myself whether you are a higher authority on the matter than jesus - woops, sorry, the mistaken matthew.

Not by any means. If you believe Matthew literally, then I support you in your belief. I suspect, however that you do not, and you are merely fishing for christians to show how smart you are to. I love it when Atheists take on the "Holier than thou" approach.

If you blaspheme the holy spirit, aka holy wind, then you are not forgiven - now or ever, so sayeth matthew quoting jesus.. apparently incorrectly.


Main Entry: blas·pheme
Pronunciation: \blas-ˈfēm, ˈblas-ˌ\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): blas·phemed; blas·phem·ing
Etymology: Middle English blasfemen, from Late Latin blasphemare — more at blame
Date: 14th century
transitive verb
1 : to speak of or address with irreverence

So what word would Jesus have used to say this in Aramaic, perhaps, then? Do you have Matthew's original handy, probably written in either Greek or Early Latin, about 1350+years before this particular word came about?


However, you put a little whine at the end saying you think I wont accept that as an answer. I hereby give you the opportunity to tell me why I should, why you should be regarded as the authority on the matter. Please, take your time.

The only reason I could be considered an authority on the matter is that I am a christian, and have studied the bible, and have come to my own conclusions. I believe that your irreverance towards the Holy Spirit is only damning if you choose to pursue it until you die. If it makes you happy to believe that your irreverence thus far is damning, that Jesus cannot intercede for you in this instance, I will quit this argument, and accede to you. Somehow, though you like to use biblical references, I do not think you have faith in God, or Jesus, or the Holy Spirit for that matter. If that is the case, I would suggest that you leave the name calling to those capable of knowing what it is they are calling a name.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

BillyT-What parts of your post do you want me to take seriously? I answered the OP, and since then have been discussing things with the esteemed snakelord. We are, loosely, on topic. Oh! You are mistaken by the way. God is not multisexual. God is asexual. God's gender is based purely on patriarchal labels, and now the increasingly matriarchal labels. God would be just as well described as It.

 

[Billy T]

BillyT-What parts of your post do you want me to take seriously? I answered the OP, and since then have been discussing things with the esteemed snakelord. We are, loosely, on topic. Oh! You are mistaken by the way. God is not multisexual. God is asexual. God's gender is based purely on patriarchal labels, and now the increasingly matriarchal labels. God would be just as well described as It.

OK. I admit I was just guessing on the "multi-sexual" part, but the rest of post 27 is the "God's honest truth." Are you telling me that there is no sex in heaven?

If that is true, I will violate rule (1) and pray for change of heaven's policy (for others as praying will disqualify me from entry into heaven by God's rule 1.)

 

[Medicine*Woman]

OK. I admit I was just guessing on the "multi-sexual" part, but the rest of post 27 is the "God's honest truth." Are you telling me that there is no sex in heaven?

If that is true, I will violate rule (1) and pray for change of heaven's policy (for others as praying will disqualify me from entry into heaven by God's rule 1.)

*************
M*W: The myth of god's sexual archetype is androgenous rather than multi-sexual according to what I've read. Now we know that there are many sexual types, but the ancient myth allows for it's god-types to be both male and female (i.e. "let us make god in our image").

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

OK. I admit I was just guessing on the "multi-sexual" part, but the rest of post 27 is the "God's honest truth." Are you telling me that there is no sex in heaven?

If that is true, I will violate rule (1) and pray for change of heaven's policy (for others as praying will disqualify me from entry into heaven by God's rule 1.)

I haven't been there, so I can't say exactly WHAT goes on in heaven.

the rest of post 27 is crunchy and good with milk.

 

[(Q)]

I include my decision making process as a part of who I am, as much as I do my appendages.

And so you should, they are both physical functions of your body.

If someone tells me that I am horribly ugly, should I not be offended, since I was born with my face, and had no say about it?

Nonsense, that's their problem, not yours. Just smile and wave. :wave:

So, what does this have to do with separating a set of ideals from yourself?

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

You have suggested that the set of ideals was instilled in me through childhood indoctrination, right? Therefore those ideals are a part of my decision making process. Still with me? My decision making process is as much me as my face. Still following, right? Thus my ideals are as much a part of me as my face. It would be rather difficult to seperate myself from my face, therefore it would be at least equally difficult to seperate myself from my ideals.

 

[(Q)]

1. All books were written by men. Taking your supposition that the Bible, since it was written by men, should be ignored, then we should do the same with the writings of Charles Darwin?

It has all the power that the individual assigns it.

There's no reason to ignore the bible, it has some interesting fables, some gems of phrases and a life lesson or two.

However, if humans assign the power of the word of a god who is responsible for all creation, assigns our lives in submission and worship, assigns an afterlife of eternal damnation, this would serve only to demonstrate that the bible was indeed conceived, contrived and conscripted by men, and only men.

If you are choosing to assign such power to a mere book written centuries ago, why would anyone take the religion at all seriously? They would only do so if they themselves assigned such power. Millions could do exactly the same thing.

Yet, with all those millions and millions of assignments of power, gods have shown us nothing more than their complete silence and impotence. It is only the assignment of power which you and others give the bible that is of any consequence.

And it is that which can be duly ignored.

2. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is to deny the work of the Holy Spirit. The work of the Holy Spirit is to give testimony(internal) to Jesus as Savior. Now. If you stop denying the Holy Spirit while you have breath, and have faith in Jesus Christ, then the blasphemy is undone. Not that I think you will accept this as an answer.

Impossible to accept. Those are empty words to anyone who hasn't assigned the same power as you to the bible. And your personal assignment of such power ideally precludes the relevancy of your religion and your god.

Sort of like peeing into the wind.

 

[(Q)]

You have suggested that the set of ideals was instilled in me through childhood indoctrination, right? Therefore those ideals are a part of my decision making process. Still with me? My decision making process is as much me as my face. Still following, right? Thus my ideals are as much a part of me as my face. It would be rather difficult to seperate myself from my face, therefore it would be at least equally difficult to seperate myself from my ideals.

Sorry, but you are still not separating YOUR decision making process from SOMEONE ELSE'S ideals. They were never your ideals, regardless of the fact you accepted them, uncritically.

And they most certainly are not difficult to separate from you, in any number of ways.

You are you and the ideals of your religion are something completely different from you.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

There's no reason to ignore the bible, it has some interesting fables, some gems of phrases and a life lesson or two.

However, if humans assign the power of the word of a god who is responsible for all creation, assigns our lives in submission and worship, assigns an afterlife of eternal damnation, this would serve only to demonstrate that the bible was indeed conceived, contrived and conscripted by men, and only men.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. The bible was written by men? Yep. Were they doing their best to be historically accurate? Yep. Was it written by men who already had faith in God? yep. Should an atheist have anything to do with it? Only when 1. Studying world religion 2. Refuting a rabid, attacking evangelical christian 3. If they are seeking God. Ask yourselves, Q and Snakelord specifically, which of these three categories do you fall into?

If you are choosing to assign such power to a mere book written centuries ago, why would anyone take the religion at all seriously? They would only do so if they themselves assigned such power. Millions could do exactly the same thing.

What? Are you asking why anyone should take the bible, and erego, christianity seriously? If so, see above. If not, be more clear for this simple pig.

Yet, with all those millions and millions of assignments of power, gods have shown us nothing more than their complete silence and impotence. It is only the assignment of power which you and others give the bible that is of any consequence.

I see. So because millions and millions of people have "sought God" and they did not get responses that were readily evidenced to YOU, God is nullified. I'm sorry you feel that way, Q.

And it is that which can be duly ignored.

If you must hide yourself away from God, then by all means.

Impossible to accept. Those are empty words to anyone who hasn't assigned the same power as you to the bible. And your personal assignment of such power ideally precludes the relevancy of your religion and your god.

Sort of like peeing into the wind.

I would suggest that perhaps I am merely "throwing my pearls to the swine"

 

[(Q)]

I would suggest that perhaps I am merely "throwing my pearls to the swine"

Why would you say such a thing? Is that the extent of your argument? Why do you bother, then? :shrug: